billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
Quote[reply
Ok, lets go with your contribution/tax deduction.
Hyptothetical: I make 20k a year, and I donate $500 to a charity. Show me how I'm going to pay $500 less tax because of that donation than I would if I didn't make the donation.
I have said "the gov's basically forces you to either donate, or to pay taxes on this amount". So if you did not donate those $500, you will pay tax on them - which, depending on your tax bracket may cost you from $5 to $300. So you either pay to charity, or you pay the government. The amount, of course, is different - and so it is for insurance.
The government isn't saying "You have to donate or we're going to charge you what you SHOULD have donated".
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
The government isn't saying "You have to donate or we're going to charge you what you SHOULD have donated".
Nope. The government is basically saying "you have to either donate $X, or pay tax on $X. The choice is yours, but you have to make either choice. You cannot just keep $X and pay no tax on it".
Regarding the amount charged, it should consider the difference that the government may be required to pay for your medical services - something a charity would never be required to.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
The government isn't saying "You have to donate or we're going to charge you what you SHOULD have donated".
Nope. The government is basically saying "you have to either donate $X, or pay tax on $X.
Show me the regulation that states that I have to donate "x" amount or pay a penalty tax equal to "x" amount.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Show me the regulation that states that I have to donate "x" amount or pay a penalty tax equal to "x" amount.
There is no such regulation, nor I ever said such thing.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Show me the regulation that states that I have to donate "x" amount or pay a penalty tax equal to "x" amount.
There is no such regulation, nor I ever said such thing.
You're the one trying to equate donations to mandated coverage/penalty equivalent to the cost of mandated coverage. Does that mean you're FINALLY admitting they're NOT the same?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Andy9o8 2
You're both talking past each other.
Quote
You're the one trying to equate donations to mandated coverage/penalty equivalent to the cost of mandated coverage.
Nope. You probably need a reminder.
It all started with you saying that "the government requires you to buy service".
And I replied that the government does not require you to buy anything; if you don't want to spend money, you can just pay some tax instead. Which is similar to donation - you can either donate money, or pay tax on those money instead.
Then you said that the government does not require you to donate to any specific charity.
And I replied that the the only requirement is that charity should be approved - pretty much as insurance company - and of course you do not have to donate, but you will pay extra in taxes instead.
Then after dancing around you somehow stuck to the idea that what I said meant that you need to either donate $X, or pay $X in taxes - even though I never said that. I said that you need to either donate $X, or pay tax on $X - which is kinda different thing.
Here it seems like you got confused (or got out of arguments), as you seem to stick to the point of donated/taxed amount, as well as health coverage cost/"missing coverage tax", and those numbers are completely different.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
neither your opinion nor mine matters, only the Judicial Branch's.
and that right there says so much about how this country got to where it is today.
Such are the consequences of having our Constitution. That's how the Founding Fathers designed the system.
my point was that from the statement, apathy was inferred. Apathy is bad for this country.
--
Rob
Rob
Lucky... 0
QuoteLooking through the thread on wire tapping, it occurred to me that some parts of the Constitution seem to be "more important" than others. Seems "privacy" issues are paramount, but the enumerated powers are passe.
Seems that anything can be justified by evoking the Interstate Commerce Clause, maybe wiretapping is an Interstate Commerce Clause issue? Just as much as health care is an Interstate Commerce Clause issue. If not from the Commerce Clause, where does the Federal Government garnish the power to confiscate the health care industry?
Maritn
Katz v Ohio is one of the biggest privacy case laws. It states people have privacy, not places. Of course that had to be rendered in, as the great founders forgot to mention that anywhere.
Don't see how HC reform is confiscation.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
neither your opinion nor mine matters, only the Judicial Branch's.
and that right there says so much about how this country got to where it is today.
But you have no problem with Heller, do you? Justices / judges who find teh way you would are just following the constitution, all others are activists
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote>so gov't can force you to buy a product, now?
Yep. A few examples:
Driver's license/registration (if you want to use public roads)
Pilot's license (if you want to fly your typical airplane)
Marriage license (if you want to get married)
I'm sure you can come up with loads of examples yourself.
I'm sure I could - I'm sure all of them would be CHOICES, like all the above that you list.
This healthcare bill isn't a choice, it's 'you ARE going to pay for this product'.
And teh overblown military isn't a choice either. I chose not, but they still do anyway, to teh tune of 8 times that of #2 China.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote>I'm sure I could - I'm sure all of them would be CHOICES, like all the
>above that you list.
And like healthcare. No one will be forced to take any specific option.
No, but they will have to take SOME option - whether they want to or not.
And teh idea is that you won't be able to bitch about the ER costs passed to the hospitals and state. You can't have it all.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
neither your opinion nor mine matters, only the Judicial Branch's.
and that right there says so much about how this country got to where it is today.
Such are the consequences of having our Constitution. That's how the Founding Fathers designed the system.
my point was that from the statement, apathy was inferred. Apathy is bad for this country.
Ah, who cares?
jcd11235 0
Quotemy point was that from the statement, apathy was inferred. Apathy is bad for this country.
The statement wasn't an example of apathy. The fact of the matter is that the judicial interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that carries any legal weight.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteFrom Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Edit to add: I would hardly consider healthcare reform to be "confiscating the healthcare industry."
I'm not constitutional scholar, but as I understand "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" did not mean "attempt to level the playing field by confiscatory taxation" as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I heard a comment from our current Chief Executive to the affect that the Constitution is an obstacle, just getting in the way of doing good. What a bitch!
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.
AC DZ
AC DZ
jcd11235 0
QuoteI'm not constitutional scholar, but as I understand "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" did not mean "attempt to level the playing field by confiscatory taxation" as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Of course, no one is talking about an "'attempt to level the playing field by confiscatory taxation' as in 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'" The discussion is about Congressional authority to pass legislation for healthcare reform.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rhaig 0
QuoteQuotemy point was that from the statement, apathy was inferred. Apathy is bad for this country.
The statement wasn't an example of apathy. The fact of the matter is that the judicial interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that carries any legal weight.
well those of us who know the difference between the words infer and imply know why I chose the word "inferred".
--
Rob
Rob
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteFrom Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Edit to add: I would hardly consider healthcare reform to be "confiscating the healthcare industry."
I'm not constitutional scholar, but as I understand "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" did not mean "attempt to level the playing field by confiscatory taxation" as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Actually, it's so deliberately vague that what it means is defined by the collective consensus (Ha!) of each successive generation. So it may very well (and probably does) have vastly different meanings, depending on whether the year is 1812, 1912 or 2012.
QuoteI heard a comment from our current Chief Executive to the affect that the Constitution is an obstacle, just getting in the way of doing good. What a bitch!
I confess I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link to the text so I can read the verbatim language, and see its context?
Quote
Of course, no one is talking about an "'attempt to level the playing field by confiscatory taxation' as in 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'" The discussion is about Congressional authority to pass legislation for healthcare reform.
The OP was about the Constitution and the fact that people get all bent out of shape on privacy issues, but that a very large share of the document is routinely disregarded by our benevolent government, and that the Constitution is regarded as getting in the way of "good law"
Seeking to justify this set of arrangements in Federalist 51, Madison explains the need for them by reference to the imperfection of man. He compares us to angels, which relative to humans are less given to greed. In a beautiful passage, Madison explains that the reason we humans require government is also the reason why government must be limited:
But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.
AC DZ
AC DZ
kallend 2,148
Quote
QuoteI heard a comment from our current Chief Executive to the affect that the Constitution is an obstacle, just getting in the way of doing good. What a bitch!
I confess I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link to the text so I can read the verbatim language, and see its context?
Sounds more like a Limbaughism.
Wasn't it Bush whom someone "heard" calling the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper”?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
Sounds more like a Limbaughism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded
Here's a radio interview with Obama, well maybe it's Limbaugh doing an impression, you decide.
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.
AC DZ
AC DZ
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Sounds more like a Limbaughism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded
Here's a radio interview with Obama, well maybe it's Limbaugh doing an impression, you decide.
It doesn't even sound like him......come on man.
Nope, they don't have to. Try again!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites